Female Condoms
Bald Geezer
Female condoms were better for men than for women. Condoms completely ruin
the sexual experience for a man, and all the technical changes in the world
won't fix that. But slip a female condom into her, with a squirt of baby
oil, and the sex is as good for him as it is with an unprotected vagina.
I think that we should start a movement to bring these things back, like
the movement that brought back the sponge.
JustGB
You're pleasure at the expense of hers. Nice.
JustGB
Anonymous Jack
Never having used one - or asked anyone about female condoms - how much
do they reduce a woman's pleasure/sensation?
Is the sensation that different from a penis in a condom?
JustGB
Never having used a condom of any kind, I haven't got the slightest
idea what the difference might be between his/her condoms nor whether
there is a reduction in sensation. I was just responding to what he
said:
// Female condoms were better for men than for women. Condoms
completely
// ruin the sexual experience for a man, ....
// But slip a female condom into her, ... and the sex is as good for
him as
// it is with an unprotected vagina
JustGB
The Dave
"JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Never having used a condom of any kind, I haven't got the slightest
>idea what the difference might be between his/her condoms nor whether
>there is a reduction in sensation. I was just responding to what he
>said:
>
>// Female condoms were better for men than for women. Condoms
>completely
>// ruin the sexual experience for a man, ....
>// But slip a female condom into her, ... and the sex is as good for
>him as
>// it is with an unprotected vagina
Sure, but that's not selfish if it feels the same to her as when he is
wearing a condom -- It's only selfish if he is looking to increase his
only pleasure at the expense of a female's.
Anyone ever tried one? Any feedback from the female side of things?
Bald Geezer
news:1131127793.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Bald Geezer wrote:
*plonk*
Bald Geezer
news:rhunm1pcaohiitpuv...@4ax.com:
> Sure, but that's not selfish if it feels the same to her as when he is
> wearing a condom -- It's only selfish if he is looking to increase his
> only pleasure at the expense of a female's.
>
> Anyone ever tried one? Any feedback from the female side of things?
The only other thing I can add from a male perspective is that when your
erection collapses, nobody has any fun.
Delila
"Bald Geezer" <i...@ny.nz> wrote in message
news:Xns9704CC0407...@207.115.17.102...
I'm sure she's heartbroken...
D.
The Dave
<i...@ny.nz> wrote:
That's one possibility. On the other hand, I have never had any
problems getting a woman off without use of my erection at all.
*shrugs*
Alexis
Dave, please come over here so I can give you a great big hug....
Alexis
Bald Geezer
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
*plonk* to you, too
suzee
Gee, now that you've plonked nearly everyone, I guess you'll just have
to reply to yourself.
sue
Bald Geezer
news:436c3a86$0$44259$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net:
I'd rather play with myself than the cruel children. Now where was I?
Oh, yeah *plonk* number three.
The Dave
"Alexis" <alexis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'll be in Texas in less then four weeks, and I would love to take you
up on that. Wrong part of Texas mind you, but a man can dream.
It rather annoys me that so many guys don't get it... While I am
admittedly a different situation then most guys, when I spent a month in
Chicago with a girl, I was able to bring her to multiple orgasms most
days, probably 20-25 of the 29 nights I was there, all without inserting
my penis anywhere.
While I wouldn't mind working on the whole intercourse thing, it's not a
limiting factor to having a lot of fun (for both of us)
The Dave
<i...@ny.nz> wrote:
>suzee <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in
>news:436c3a86$0$44259$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net:
>
>> Bald Geezer wrote:
>>> "Delila" <WATERT...@SPAMpeoplepc.com> wrote in
>>> news:tDUaf.5041$m81.2327 @newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Bald Geezer" <i...@ny.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9704CC0407...@207.115.17.102...
>>>> >
>>>> > *plonk*
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure she's heartbroken...
>>>
>>> *plonk* to you, too
>>
>> Gee, now that you've plonked nearly everyone, I guess you'll just have
>> to reply to yourself.
>
>I'd rather play with myself than the cruel children. Now where was I?
>Oh, yeah *plonk* number three.
Ohh ohh, do me too baby.
JustGB
<smooch> !
> While I wouldn't mind working on the whole intercourse thing, it's not a
> limiting factor to having a lot of fun (for both of us)
Exactly where in Texas are you going to be?
JustGB
The Dave
"JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The Dave wrote:
>> In message <1131159831.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>> "Alexis" <alexis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dave, please come over here so I can give you a great big hug....
>>
>> I'll be in Texas in less then four weeks, and I would love to take you
>> up on that. Wrong part of Texas mind you, but a man can dream.
>>
>> It rather annoys me that so many guys don't get it... While I am
>> admittedly a different situation then most guys, when I spent a month in
>> Chicago with a girl, I was able to bring her to multiple orgasms most
>> days, probably 20-25 of the 29 nights I was there, all without inserting
>> my penis anywhere.
>
><smooch> !
Yay! Thanks, you're too kind!
>> While I wouldn't mind working on the whole intercourse thing, it's not a
>> limiting factor to having a lot of fun (for both of us)
>
>Exactly where in Texas are you going to be?
What an odd question based on the above quote :P
DFW area... The hotel is about 10-15 minutes from the airport, and the
office not far from there.
I'm buying dinner for anyone that can show up... I'll be in TX from the
30th of November through the following Sunday, although Saturday night
I'm already booked.
Delila
>> >
>> > *plonk*
>>
>>
>> I'm sure she's heartbroken...
>
> *plonk* to you, too
LOL! How predictable.
D.
Alexis
Yeah... and I was just thinking that I need a good, hard plonk myself.
So... uh... <waving arms in the air>.... hey Geezer (or is it Mr.
Anderson?)...
I strongly believe that there's "No fool like an old fool."
Howssat?
Alexis
Minty
The Dave wrote:
> Sure, but that's not selfish if it feels the same to her as when he is
> wearing a condom -- It's only selfish if he is looking to increase his
> only pleasure at the expense of a female's.
>
> Anyone ever tried one? Any feedback from the female side of things?
>
Yes, I have. But admittedly it was about 7 or 8 years ago, and femidom
technology may have come on since then. I tried them because I thought
it was only fair to 'take a turn' with the protection. I wanted to give
the guy I was seeing a break from wearing condoms, but there was no way
in hell I was going to have unprotected sex with him.
Anyway, I thought they were absolutely awful, and in fact, so did he.
First, putting the thing in was awkward and involved a lot of me
rummaging around inside my vag, trying to get the hoop at the closed
end into the right position (although I expect this would become easier
with practice, like the cap - not that I ever got the hang of those
either). Secondly, the open end of the bag hangs down out of the
vagina, which apparently looks pretty offputting. Then, the fact that
it's easier to fit a condom smoothly over the outside of a cylindrical
object (ie. penis), with slight stretching of the material, than it is
to make a loose plastic bag thing lie smoothly against the *inside* of
a vaguely cylindrical space (ie. vagina). So it got wrinkled and rucked
up, which was not particularly comfortable for either of us. Oh yes,
and while it was getting rucked up the material made a rustling noise.
Not conducive to passion. He chose to look away as I was yanking the
damn thing out afterwards.
So, a woman's opinion: I hated them. And a man's opinion: he considered
condoms the lesser evil of the two.
Hope that helps.
Minty
The Dave
"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>So, a woman's opinion: I hated them. And a man's opinion: he considered
>condoms the lesser evil of the two.
>Hope that helps.
It does -- I've always had the same impression of them, but since I've
never tried them and don't really have the right equipment anyway, I've
never really been sure.
dejablues
Don't forget to call her a Christian prude!
Nanook
But IS it at the expense of hers?
Do female condoms ruin the sexual experience for women the way male
condoms ruin it for men?
Personally sex involves skin-on-skin and exchanging fluids and anything
short of that isn't sex, but that's just me.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Shells, Web Hosting, 56K/ISDN/DSL, 2-Week Trial!
Internet access with real toll-free human help as low as $9.00 / month!
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
JustGB
Nanook wrote:
> In article <1131127793.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > Bald Geezer wrote:
> > > Female condoms were better for men than for women. Condoms completely ruin
> > > the sexual experience for a man, and all the technical changes in the world
> > > won't fix that. But slip a female condom into her, with a squirt of baby
> > > oil, and the sex is as good for him as it is with an unprotected vagina.
> > >
> > > I think that we should start a movement to bring these things back, like
> > > the movement that brought back the sponge.
> >
> > You're pleasure at the expense of hers. Nice.
> >
> > JustGB
> >
>
>
> But IS it at the expense of hers?
>
> Do female condoms ruin the sexual experience for women the way male
> condoms ruin it for men?
>
> Personally sex involves skin-on-skin and exchanging fluids and anything
> short of that isn't sex, but that's just me.
>
No, that's not just you, it's me too. But then never having
experienced a condom I *would* say that, wouldn't I?
JustGB
Anonymous Jack
<about female condoms>
> Anyway, I thought they were absolutely awful, and in fact, so did he.
considered
> condoms the lesser evil of the two.
> Hope that helps.
It does help a curious mind - thanks for sharing your experience.
Guess there's a reason they haven't hit it big :)
Minty
Nanook wrote:
> In article <1131127793.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > Bald Geezer wrote:
> > > Female condoms were better for men than for women. Condoms completely ruin
> > > the sexual experience for a man, and all the technical changes in the world
> > > won't fix that. But slip a female condom into her, with a squirt of baby
> > > oil, and the sex is as good for him as it is with an unprotected vagina.
> > >
> > > I think that we should start a movement to bring these things back, like
> > > the movement that brought back the sponge.
> >
> > You're pleasure at the expense of hers. Nice.
> >
> > JustGB
> >
>
>
> But IS it at the expense of hers?
>
> Do female condoms ruin the sexual experience for women the way male
> condoms ruin it for men?
>
Refer you to my previous post: In my experience, they ruin it for
*both* woman and man.
> Personally sex involves skin-on-skin and exchanging fluids and anything
> short of that isn't sex, but that's just me.
>
Fluid exchange is welcome with someone that one trusts and has some
emotional involvement with. But some of us, sometimes, get a kick from
having sex with people we barely know, in which case trust is
inappropriate and condoms a very good idea.
Minty
yer...@hotmail.com
I have two questions about the kick "some of us sometimes get from
having sex with people we barely know."
1. In the past I have interpreted sex with a stranger minus a condom,
is sex without trust...... please help me understand where is the fun?
2. Is it better sex? (i.e. more passion & thrill)
I have tended to stay away from sex with strangers, & your post
suggests that I perhaps I might be missing something. (Perhaps due to
conditioning)
Yerodin.
Elizabeth
Should leave it to Minty, I suppose, but, for me, sex with strangers
gives me a real kick. It's pure sexual lust, it's a real "getting down
to it". Some of the best orgasms I've had have been in sex with
strangers. [Yes, yes, yes, I know it's an unsafe practice, and yes, I
know about STDs - but I still get really turned on by it.]
Minty
Hi Yerodin
It's often difficult, if not impossible, to define exactly why
something is a turn-on for some people and not others. Some people have
a kink about feet, or being tied up, or talking dirty, etc. and yet it
does nothing for others. I find the idea of sex with strangers (ie.
physical intimacy without any emotional context) a turn-on, but I
certainly wouldn't recommend trying it just for the sake of it. If the
idea excites you, do it; if it doesn' t, don't.
Thinking a bit more about it, I wonder whether it has to do with a
person's more general attitudes to relationships. My personal view is
that there is no reason why love and sex should occur together, BUT
that it's great when they do coincide in the same person. I can enjoy
being in love without having sex, and I can enjoy sex without being in
love. It's not that I'm saying sex is meaningless and shallow, but that
it can be a deep expression of feeling or it can be pure physical
pleasure, and everything on the scale in between. The fact that I get
very turned on by sex with someone I've just met, whose name I may not
even know, and will probably never see again, is a slightly separate
issue, and which I would describe as a personal kink.
Another reason some people like casual sex is because to them it is a
rebellion thing - they believe that it is morally wrong, and yet they
like the feeling of 'being bad' and misbehaving. (I have to say, I've
particularly encountered this in people claiming to be Catholics.) This
doesn't apply to me, though, because I don't believe it's wrong.
Touching on something Elizabeth said, for me the actual quality of the
sex is mostly unrelated to whether I know the person or not. Chances
are, sex with someone new is likely not to be as good as someone who I
have been sleeping with for a long time and where we know eachother's
bodies well. On the other hand, there is a thrill to exploring someone
new. But it's a bit of a lottery - might be fantastic, might be awful
(and I've certainly had my share of both!)
Trust doesn't really come into it. If I don't know someone, I have no
reason to trust them. While that doesn't stop me fancying them, it will
stop me having unprotected sex with them. I'm not into taking risks
with STDs, pregnancy, etc. I am well aware that the majority of blokes
don't like wearing condoms, but on the other hand, the vast majority of
my casual shags have agreed to put one on without complaint, and have
given the appearance of enjoying themselves quite a lot despite the
layer of latex in between. On the rare occasions where they've refused
to wear one and I've refused to do it without, there's always
alternatives to penetration anyway. Or sticking to lesbians...
Minty
yer...@hotmail.com
Thanks for the feedback Elizabeth.
I read your response before Minty's, and got to thinking a bit more
about my attitude towards the subject of sex with strangers.
I am almost sure that I battle with the following (i.e. If no STD or
pregancy worries) :
1. Emotion (i.e. Sex with multiple partners must be great.. you might
find someone who rocks your world, but may not wish to stay)
2. Reason (i.e. Sex with someone committed to learning what makes you
squirm in bed, has had, & desires more background experience with
you.... is much more dependable)
I just realised that conditioning (i.e. as opposed to experience on
which to base emotion or reason), has played a large part in
determining if I would continue on to have sex with a good looking
(i.e. to me), willing strange woman.
I fantasize about the experience, but am not sure I really want to find
out where the road leads after the romp. (i.e. unless I am really
horny... then I don't care)
Somehow, these moments of abandon haven't usually coincided with a
strange, willing woman being present.
I have felt for some time now that the "getting down to it" to which
you refer has been off limits to me.
None of my previous partners seemed "carefree" enough to experiment
outside of what they knew, even though if I pushed the envelope & used
my imagination, whatever I did was later included in the next romp.
Hence, I believe that some people's conditioning is even more
restrictive than mine.
The worrisome thing (maybe unfair) is that I have been avoiding pushing
my relationships further for fear of committing myself to person who
lacks the open mindedness to look outside of their training.
So I am giving some serious thought to "real" attitude adjustment.
(i.e. Mine of course)
Yerodin.
yer...@hotmail.com
Minty wrote:
> yer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Hey Minty,
> >
> > I have two questions about the kick "some of us sometimes get from
> > having sex with people we barely know."
> >
> > 1. In the past I have interpreted sex with a stranger minus a condom,
> > is sex without trust...... please help me understand where is the fun?
> >
> > 2. Is it better sex? (i.e. more passion & thrill)
> >
> > I have tended to stay away from sex with strangers, & your post
> > suggests that I perhaps I might be missing something. (Perhaps due to
> > conditioning)
> >
> > Yerodin.
>
> Hi Yerodin
>
> It's often difficult, if not impossible, to define exactly why
> something is a turn-on for some people and not others. Some people have
> a kink about feet, or being tied up, or talking dirty, etc. and yet it
> does nothing for others. I find the idea of sex with strangers (ie.
> physical intimacy without any emotional context) a turn-on, but I
> certainly wouldn't recommend trying it just for the sake of it. If the
> idea excites you, do it; if it doesn' t, don't.
This I understand and agree with Minty.
Making a decision just because somebody else says it worked for them
isn't my style, & I can resist the temptation to do so.
>
> Thinking a bit more about it, I wonder whether it has to do with a
> person's more general attitudes to relationships. My personal view is
> that there is no reason why love and sex should occur together, BUT
> that it's great when they do coincide in the same person. I can enjoy
> being in love without having sex, and I can enjoy sex without being in
> love.
This I can also understand from a rational standpoint, & I am impressed
that you have managed to find the "stable" middle ground.
>It's not that I'm saying sex is meaningless and shallow, but that
> it can be a deep expression of feeling or it can be pure physical
> pleasure, and everything on the scale in between.
I believe men & women go through different phases of sexual development
in life, & some of us are a little more "in touch" with our development
than others. Maybe fence sitters like me, spend too much time looking
for cues to enable us to pair with a "like mind."
>The fact that I get
> very turned on by sex with someone I've just met, whose name I may not
> even know, and will probably never see again, is a slightly separate
> issue, and which I would describe as a personal kink.
Okay.
>
> Another reason some people like casual sex is because to them it is a
> rebellion thing - they believe that it is morally wrong, and yet they
> like the feeling of 'being bad' and misbehaving. (I have to say, I've
> particularly encountered this in people claiming to be Catholics.) This
> doesn't apply to me, though, because I don't believe it's wrong.
Ahhhh.
Perhaps, if one can put religion aside & submit to pure unrestrained
carnality it would give a better appreciation of the values to which we
already subscribe.
But what to do when the romp is over & there is no closure (i.e. never
see you again)?
I have often wondered why within the sanctity of marriage, carnality
amongst some of the dedicated religous is STILL repressed.
It bothers me actually, for hypocrisy kills passion, lust and desire
even in a committed relationship.
>
> Touching on something Elizabeth said, for me the actual quality of the
> sex is mostly unrelated to whether I know the person or not. Chances
> are, sex with someone new is likely not to be as good as someone who I
> have been sleeping with for a long time and where we know eachother's
> bodies well. On the other hand, there is a thrill to exploring someone
> new. But it's a bit of a lottery - might be fantastic, might be awful
> (and I've certainly had my share of both!)
Minty instead of mouthing platitudes, I ask you if the quality of
sexual experience with a stranger doesn't affect my future continued
practice of the habit.....should I care that my fellow temporary bed
bunny may wish to have a repeat romp?
I mean if it wasn't that good for me, why do it again?
What does a guy say at a time like that?
Should you be sensitive & actually show that you do have a heart, or
repeat the non-verbal agreement line for one-off liasons?
>
> Trust doesn't really come into it. If I don't know someone, I have no
> reason to trust them. While that doesn't stop me fancying them, it will
> stop me having unprotected sex with them. I'm not into taking risks
> with STDs, pregnancy, etc. I am well aware that the majority of blokes
> don't like wearing condoms, but on the other hand, the vast majority of
> my casual shags have agreed to put one on without complaint, and have
> given the appearance of enjoying themselves quite a lot despite the
> layer of latex in between.
I think it is stupid to ask you how does one tell the woman interested
in a casual shag, so instead.......
What do folks who are into casual shagging, & potential lifestyle
neophytes (i.e. like me)do after time flies a bit?
Especially when your casual shags start to get married to husbands who
don't know what they did with you. (i.e. are no longer making
themselves available)
See... I respect that for the uninitiated mind it can be a complicated,
winding path to follow.
Breathelessy awaiting your ideas along with those of any other woman
who feel they can shed some light my way.
Yerodin.
Minty
yer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I believe men & women go through different phases of sexual development
> in life, & some of us are a little more "in touch" with our development
> than others. Maybe fence sitters like me, spend too much time looking
> for cues to enable us to pair with a "like mind."
>
I agree; people definitely go through different phases in life.
However, it's still not simple, as sometimes an event in someone's life
(perhaps the cliched 'meeting Mr/Ms Right', or for that matter, someone
turning out not to be so right after all) can trigger a change from one
phase to another. Also, a person, probably quite a self-aware person,
might be open and receptive to a more meaningful/serious/permanant
relationship, should the right person come along, but still enjoying
meaningless fun sex until that right person comes along.
>
> But what to do when the romp is over & there is no closure (i.e. never
> see you again)?
>
I'm not quite sure what you mean by closure in this case. If the two
people both have a good time and want to see eachother again, they can
do that. Maybe it will turn into something more serious, maybe not -
and if it doesn't, that doesn't mean it wasn't still pleasurable. If
the two people have no interest in seeing eachother again, then it's
goodbye. Of course, if one person wants to meet up for seconds and the
other doesn't, it can be a little uncomfortable, but then, you've just
met, so it's not like there are any deep feelings going on yet. Of
course, if it goes on longer as a casual no-strings thing, friendship
can develop, which makes it harder.
Some people claim to have fallen in love at first sight, but I find
this very difficult to believe in. How can one fall in love with
someone without knowing their personality and mind? And that only comes
with time. Having said that, there was one time I came close. I met a
lovely guy and spent all day with him, then had fabulous sex with him.
I thought he was great and wanted to see him again. He told me that he
had a wife *and* a girlfriend. I said 'Give me a call if you find
yourself single some day', but wondered if this was just his way of
saying that it hadn't been so good for him. In fact, he did write to me
about a year later, but by that time I was with someone else, and to be
honest, I'd have a lot of trouble trusting someone like that. The thing
is, I look back on the incident and think 'Ah, what a lovely 24 hours
that was'.
>
> I have often wondered why within the sanctity of marriage, carnality
> amongst some of the dedicated religous is STILL repressed.
>
> It bothers me actually, for hypocrisy kills passion, lust and desire
> even in a committed relationship.
>
Ask a religious person.
>
> Minty instead of mouthing platitudes, I ask you if the quality of
> sexual experience with a stranger doesn't affect my future continued
> practice of the habit.....should I care that my fellow temporary bed
> bunny may wish to have a repeat romp?
>
Only you know whether you want to try it again or not. I know some
people (mostly men) who make a point of never 'going back', but to me
this is as silly as making a point of waiting for a certain random
number of dates before sleeping together.
>
> I think it is stupid to ask you how does one tell the woman interested
> in a casual shag, so instead.......
> What do folks who are into casual shagging, & potential lifestyle
> neophytes (i.e. like me) do after time flies a bit?
>
- Carry on because it's still what they want to do?
- Meet 'the one' and give up the promiscuity for monogamy, at least for
as long as it lasts. (This is me at the moment - reformed tart. Mostly
happy; missing the thrill of the chase a bit, but it's worth giving it
up for him.)
- Meet 'the one' and then cheat on them. (I don't advise or approve of
this!)
- Confess their sins to their religious leader and pray for
forgiveness. (Can't say I think much of this one either)
- and many more...
>
> Especially when your casual shags start to get married to husbands who
> don't know what they did with you. (i.e. are no longer making
> themselves available)
>
Well, all good things must come to an end. I have been the one left
behind by my no-strings partners, when they got married and felt unable
to change to a non-sexual friendship with me, or in some cases, their
new wife decided I was persona non grata. On the other hand, I have
also been the one to say 'Sorry, you're still just as cute as you
always were, but I have a boyfriend now and I don't do cheating'.
Hope it's of some help.
Minty
yer...@hotmail.com
Minty wrote:
> yer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > I believe men & women go through different phases of sexual development
> > in life, & some of us are a little more "in touch" with our development
> > than others. Maybe fence sitters like me, spend too much time looking
> > for cues to enable us to pair with a "like mind."
> >
>
> I agree; people definitely go through different phases in life.
> However, it's still not simple, as sometimes an event in someone's life
> (perhaps the cliched 'meeting Mr/Ms Right', or for that matter, someone
> turning out not to be so right after all) can trigger a change from one
> phase to another. Also, a person, probably quite a self-aware person,
> might be open and receptive to a more meaningful/serious/permanant
> relationship, should the right person come along, but still enjoying
> meaningless fun sex until that right person comes along.
>
This makes sense to me, and I guess to a lot of other people too.
> >
> > But what to do when the romp is over & there is no closure (i.e. never
> > see you again)?
> >
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by closure in this case. If the two
> people both have a good time and want to see eachother again, they can
> do that. Maybe it will turn into something more serious, maybe not -
> and if it doesn't, that doesn't mean it wasn't still pleasurable. If
> the two people have no interest in seeing eachother again, then it's
> goodbye. Of course, if one person wants to meet up for seconds and the
> other doesn't, it can be a little uncomfortable, but then, you've just
> met, so it's not like there are any deep feelings going on yet. Of
> course, if it goes on longer as a casual no-strings thing, friendship
> can develop, which makes it harder.
>
>From your helpful answer, you interpreted my question correctly. It was
the mechanics of afterwards that I was unsure about.
> Some people claim to have fallen in love at first sight, but I find
> this very difficult to believe in. How can one fall in love with
> someone without knowing their personality and mind? And that only comes
> with time.
I find it a little unnerving whenever I meet a lady whose comments
suggest that she shares my views on sexual & relationship matters like
this. I mean it's supposed to be normal, but the deja-vu feeling.......
>Having said that, there was one time I came close. I met a
> lovely guy and spent all day with him, then had fabulous sex with him.
> I thought he was great and wanted to see him again. He told me that he
> had a wife *and* a girlfriend. I said 'Give me a call if you find
> yourself single some day', but wondered if this was just his way of
> saying that it hadn't been so good for him. In fact, he did write to me
> about a year later, but by that time I was with someone else, and to be
> honest, I'd have a lot of trouble trusting someone like that. The thing
> is, I look back on the incident and think 'Ah, what a lovely 24 hours
> that was'.
>
Mmm..... Strange.
I think you are right though, trusting someone who operates in such an
unnecessarily complicated way is probably not such a good idea. (Even
though they are tempting)
I have been close to a particular woman in my life that operated in an
unnecessarily complicated way. For a while, I spent a lot of time
hoping that she would be less so. Then I realised I was holding up my
life waiting for her.
> >
> > I have often wondered why within the sanctity of marriage, carnality
> > amongst some of the dedicated religous is STILL repressed.
> >
> > It bothers me actually, for hypocrisy kills passion, lust and desire
> > even in a committed relationship.
> >
>
> Ask a religious person.
>
No need. I am fairly sure the answer lies within the interpreted
beliefs of the more aggressive (i.e. dominant) partner.
> >
> > Minty instead of mouthing platitudes, I ask you if the quality of
> > sexual experience with a stranger doesn't affect my future continued
> > practice of the habit.....should I care that my fellow temporary bed
> > bunny may wish to have a repeat romp?
> >
>
> Only you know whether you want to try it again or not. I know some
> people (mostly men) who make a point of never 'going back', but to me
> this is as silly as making a point of waiting for a certain random
> number of dates before sleeping together.
>
Yea, and whether you want to try it again or not can depend on a lot of
other factors which weren't as important before.
> >
> > I think it is stupid to ask you how does one tell the woman interested
> > in a casual shag, so instead.......
> > What do folks who are into casual shagging, & potential lifestyle
> > neophytes (i.e. like me) do after time flies a bit?
> >
>
> - Carry on because it's still what they want to do?
> - Meet 'the one' and give up the promiscuity for monogamy, at least for
> as long as it lasts. (This is me at the moment - reformed tart. Mostly
> happy; missing the thrill of the chase a bit, but it's worth giving it
> up for him.)
> - Meet 'the one' and then cheat on them. (I don't advise or approve of
> this!)
> - Confess their sins to their religious leader and pray for
> forgiveness. (Can't say I think much of this one either)
> - and many more...
>
All helpful answers Minty.
I like that you spelt out some of the "real" options.
> >
> > Especially when your casual shags start to get married to husbands who
> > don't know what they did with you. (i.e. are no longer making
> > themselves available)
> >
>
> Well, all good things must come to an end. I have been the one left
> behind by my no-strings partners, when they got married and felt unable
> to change to a non-sexual friendship with me, or in some cases, their
> new wife decided I was persona non grata. On the other hand, I have
> also been the one to say 'Sorry, you're still just as cute as you
> always were, but I have a boyfriend now and I don't do cheating'.
>
> Hope it's of some help.
>
> Minty
Thanks for taking time to write Minty.
You have given me a different perspective & provided forthright
information I would have had a hard time eliciting from folks in my
environment.
Yerodin.
Minty
Anytime :-)
M